But it would be good to get the jurisdictions settled once and for all. USA is very different than other parts of the world.

Nonsense. The problem of overlapping jurisdictions is not confined to the USA. The situation is the same all over the Orthodox diaspora. Western Europe, South America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa - all have overlapping jurisdictions.

This use of "diaspora" needs to be addressed. It gives the impression that Orthodoxy is for the Orthodox, i.e. ethnically based. It suggests a mindset that keeps Orthodoxy from becoming as Canadian/American/Australian/etc. as Orthodoxy is distinctively Russian/Greek/Serbian/etc. Orthodoxy is not confined to any particular culture. The expression of the faith will display cultural differences from one country to another (or even within one country).

Like an increasing proportion of Orthodox Christians in North America (and elsewhere), I fit no standard definition of "diaspora". My ancestors who came to Canada were not Orthodox Christians who quite understandably needed spiritual care. While I do appreciate the cultural background of those who have shared the Orthodox faith with me, please don't label me as something I'm not.

My use of the word diaspora is purely historical. People of Orthodox faith emigrated to other countries where Orthodoxy was not the norm. For all sorts of reasons, none of these countries/regions developed their Orthodox presence under a single, national jurisdiction.

My use of the word diaspora is purely historical. People of Orthodox faith emigrated to other countries where Orthodoxy was not the norm. For all sorts of reasons, none of these countries/regions developed their Orthodox presence under a single, national jurisdiction.

I know. I didn't mean your personal use of the word, but rather the general use of the term. Do you see my point that some of us should be called "newly Evangelized" (or some such thing) rather than "diaspora"?

The Old Calendarists do not worship the Old Calendar, they just want to be able to celebrate the feast days that have for many centuries been celebrated on a particular date. They do not like the Gregorian schismatic calendar as it is from the Vatican. By using that Roman Catholic calendar, the True Orthodox believe that the New Calendarists have caved into Ecumenism and papal infallibility.

As one usually finds in the arguments raised against the so-called New Calendar by the Orthodox, Maria refers to it as the 'schismatic calendar as it is from the Vatican' and later as 'Roman Catholic Calendar' presumbably because it was developed by scientists under the patronage of Pope Gregory.

Of all of the arguments raised by Old Calendarists, this is probably the most specious and one which opens them to ridicule.

As Wiki notes the relationship between the Catholic Church and science has been at times 'rocky' but "Originally most (scientific) research took place in Roman Catholic universities that were staffed by members of religious orders who had the education and means to conduct scientific investigation.[citation needed] Catholic universities, scholars and many priests including Nicolaus Copernicus (16th century Polish priest who determined that the sun was not the center of the universe), Roger Bacon (13th century Franciscan who is credited with the development of the scientific method), Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste (13th century Bishop and founder of the scientific studies at Oxford) , Nicholas Steno (17th century bishop and pioneer in anatomy and geology) , Francesco Grimaldi (17th century Jesuit priest, physicist and mathematician), Giambattista Riccioli, Roger Boscovich (18th century Croatian priest and physicist, credited with developing the first atomic theories), Athanasius Kircher, Gregor Mendel,(priest and the 'father' of modern genetics), Georges Lemaître and many others, were responsible for many important scientific discoveries." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_science Should we reject the work of say Copernicus or Gregor Mendel because they were 'schismatics' and under the 'control' of the Vatican?

Likewise in modern times the Catholic Church has been the sponsor of thousands of hospitals across the planet and funded hundreds of research labs at Catholic Universities where many important medical advances have been developed.

Applying the Old Calendar 'logic' to these works, are the Genuine Orthodox to disavow the subsequent fruits of these disciplines and the medical treatments developed under Church auspices? After all, by that logic they are 'schismatic' findings.

As Jah points out, there are plenty of good, ecclesiological arguments to be made against the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar as it has clearly impacted the unity of Orthodox expression worldwide, but the charge that the calendar is 'schismatic' is intellectually and honestly ridiculous.

Seriously, it isn't much of a leap from that point of view to the don't use Jewish doctors mindset.

But it would be good to get the jurisdictions settled once and for all. USA is very different than other parts of the world.

Nonsense. The problem of overlapping jurisdictions is not confined to the USA. The situation is the same all over the Orthodox diaspora. Western Europe, South America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa - all have overlapping jurisdictions.

This use of "diaspora" needs to be addressed. It gives the impression that Orthodoxy is for the Orthodox, i.e. ethnically based. It suggests a mindset that keeps Orthodoxy from becoming as Canadian/American/Australian/etc. as Orthodoxy is distinctively Russian/Greek/Serbian/etc. Orthodoxy is not confined to any particular culture. The expression of the faith will display cultural differences from one country to another (or even within one country).

Like an increasing proportion of Orthodox Christians in North America (and elsewhere), I fit no standard definition of "diaspora". My ancestors who came to Canada were not Orthodox Christians who quite understandably needed spiritual care. While I do appreciate the cultural background of those who have shared the Orthodox faith with me, please don't label me as something I'm not.

While I appreciate the point of the above message, I think, at least in America, there is an overreaction to use of the term "diaspora." All it refers to is to people who are disbursed from the Holy Orthodox Churches; they are a small minority in the Orthodox dispersion until a unified administrative structure for the Orthodox Church is established under a pan-Orthodox consensus. Use of the term does not limit the Orthodox Church in these regions from fulfilling its responsibility to fullfill its Christian mission and mandate to "Go and and make diciples of all nations..."

But it would be good to get the jurisdictions settled once and for all. USA is very different than other parts of the world.

Nonsense. The problem of overlapping jurisdictions is not confined to the USA. The situation is the same all over the Orthodox diaspora. Western Europe, South America, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Asia, Africa - all have overlapping jurisdictions.

The dirty little secret: the "Mother" Churches also have their overlapping jurisdictions.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

One of the items on the apparent agenda is Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Movement.

Many members of World Orthodoxy are making the amazing statement that an Ecumenical Council is needed in order to declare "Ecumenism" to be heretical.

However, how could such an "Ecumenical Council" conducted by World Orthodoxy ecumenists ever succeed in condemning themselves?

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

A "...Council conducted by World Orthodoxy ecumenists" is not necessarily the case. The Holy and Great Synod (Council) of the Orthodox Church would be attended by all of the bishops of the Holy Orthodox Churches.

One of the items on the apparent agenda is Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Movement.

Many members of World Orthodoxy are making the amazing statement that an Ecumenical Council is needed in order to declare "Ecumenism" to be heretical.

However, how could such an "Ecumenical Council" conducted by World Orthodoxy ecumenists ever succeed in condemning themselves?

This points to the untenable position, IMO, of the so-called walled-off churches. By remaining outside of the process they have NO input in a synod's solution. It almost seems that they will hence stay out of communion forever and any issues will linger.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

One of the items on the apparent agenda is Ecumenism and the Ecumenical Movement.

Many members of World Orthodoxy are making the amazing statement that an Ecumenical Council is needed in order to declare "Ecumenism" to be heretical.

However, how could such an "Ecumenical Council" conducted by World Orthodoxy ecumenists ever succeed in condemning themselves?

This points to the untenable position, IMO, of the so-called walled-off churches. By remaining outside of the process they have NO input in a synod's solution. It almost seems that they will hence stay out of communion forever and any issues will linger.

I suspect that the issue is NOT declaring 'ecumenism' to be 'heretical', but rather defining what the heck it means. To some it means abandonment of the Apostolic Faith, to others it means seeking out other Christians, particularly open-minded, non-Protestant influenced Roman Catholics, in order to engage with them in open dialogue and hopefully, show them the path to restore their own tradition to the Faith of the Fathers. The self-proclaimed genuine Orthodox who, as is stated above, are 'walled off' from the rest of the Church take an extreme position. While they complain, probably rightly, about examples of extreme excesses in ecumenical contacts (such as the one discussed on another thread here) in reality, what I think that they truly fear are exchanges with the Church of Rome - not the Wiccans or the tribal dancers or the women 'ministers'. All of us discount them. Honestly, there are no ongoing dialogues of any import which are ongoing with the Protestant sects - that ended in the post war era as they chose to distance themselves even further away from the Church of the Apostles.

I think that the Church of Rome is at a crossroads - there are many within her body that would take her further away from the Church of the Fathers and closer to the 'church' of anything is ok - gay marriage, women 'ministers', open communion etc.... On the other hand, there are many - not the ultramontanists or the sedevacantics - who see in the Orthodox Church a path to save western Catholicism and heal the ancient schism. It is the terms upon which to deal with that large element (one led by the last two Popes) which will define 'ecumenism' from an Orthodox point of view. That is the task of the Council.

If you are not part of the problem, you can not be part of the solution. (Of course there are genuine Orthodox with other issues, such as rigidity of practice, liturgics, the calendar, but those who see in ecumenism the 'boogey man' seem to me to be afraid of Rome and would rather we put our heads in the sand like an ostrich than engage the Romans one on one.)

Then there is the EP, who would most likely refuse to seat any True Orthodox believers at such an "Ecumenical Council", or give them observer status, so they would not have any voice anyway.

Look at his treatment of the OCA, who are members of World Orthodoxy.

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who can watch the watchmen?"No one is paying attention to your post reports"Why do posters that claim to have me blocked keep sending me pms and responding to my posts? That makes no sense.

Then there is the EP, who would most likely refuse to seat any True Orthodox believers at such an "Ecumenical Council", or give them observer status, so they would not have any voice anyway.

Um, if you are out of communion with the Church, then you can't be invited to participate in a council of the Church. It's kind of by definition. If you are in schism, you could be invited to ecumenical talks to try to resolve the schism, but by 'True Orthodox' logic, that's forbidden too. If the 'True Orthodox" participated in ecumenical talks with Orthodox, the whole basis of their ecclesiology would collapse.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

Then there is the EP, who would most likely refuse to seat any True Orthodox believers at such an "Ecumenical Council", or give them observer status, so they would not have any voice anyway.

Um, if you are out of communion with the Church, then you can't be invited to participate in a council of the Church. It's kind of by definition. If you are in schism, you could be invited to ecumenical talks to try to resolve the schism, but by 'True Orthodox' logic, that's forbidden too. If the 'True Orthodox" participated in ecumenical talks with Orthodox, the whole basis of their ecclesiology would collapse.

Yes, you are correct. Our bishops in the GOC/HOTCA probably do not want to get involved with any Pan-Orthodox Council. Most likely, they will consider it to be solely a World Orthodoxy Council, but certainly not an Ecumenical Council.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see what would happen. Would it be like another Vatican II, where dramatic changes were ushered in?

Incidentally, I was talking with an Orthodox layman who has been studying the history of Ecumenical Councils, including the planning phase of this current Pan-Orthodox Council. He does not think that such a Pan-Orthodox Council will take place at any time soon. In fact, judging by the headlines of the local Greek newspapers, with the MP getting involved with affairs of the EP, Mt. Athos, and Constantinople, it looks like we will not have a Pan-Orthodox Council for many years.

Does the MP consider Russia to be the Third Rome? If so, there are bound to be almost insurmountable disagreements between the EP and the MP. Certainly, the EP is neither the head of Orthodoxy nor the "Infallible Orthodox Pope" as the news media often portrays.

« Last Edit: June 05, 2012, 07:12:18 PM by Maria »

Logged

The memory of God should be treasured in our hearts like the precious pearl mentioned in the Holy Gospel. Our life's goal should be to nurture and contemplate God always within, and never let it depart, for this steadfastness will drive demons away from us. - Paraphrased from St. Philotheus of Sinai Writings from the Philokalia: On Prayer of the Heart,Translated from the Russian by E. Kadloubovksy and G.E.H. Palmer, Faber and Faber, London, Boston, 1992 printing.

Then there is the EP, who would most likely refuse to seat any True Orthodox believers at such an "Ecumenical Council", or give them observer status, so they would not have any voice anyway.

Look at his treatment of the OCA, who are members of World Orthodoxy.

I wouldn't worry about it as your hierarchs would reject the Great Council of the Orthodox before it started. Perhaps they will call their own.

can't. they're not in communion nor talking with each other.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

The oft-stated fears of some that a Great Council of the Orthodox would somehow devolve into an 'orthodox Vatican II' are ill-founded and baseless.

There is no sector within Orthodoxy seeking radical revisions to Liturgy, penitential practices, fasting rules etc. A review of the proposed agenda and the decades of internal debate that have been ongoing regarding the same make that patently clear. As best, clarifications to existing disputes regarding territories and mutual prerogatives are at the heart of any Orthodox convocation - and a resolution to the lingering impacts of the Calendar dispute.

Unlike Rome, an Orthodox Council has no despot or absolute monarch to 'enforce' its findings. Unlike Rome, the Churches of the East must 'accept' the findings of such a Council and in a sense 'ratify' them over time. The oft-cited Florence is an example of such rejection by the East.

Finally, given the cautious nature of Orthodox hierarchs and Orthodox culture, there is no way that issues like role of women or gay marriage would ever surface.

In other words, except for us church-geeks, the event will be a bore to most of the world - full of some pageantry and a lot of lengthy speeches.

Then there is the EP, who would most likely refuse to seat any True Orthodox believers at such an "Ecumenical Council", or give them observer status, so they would not have any voice anyway.

Look at his treatment of the OCA, who are members of World Orthodoxy.

Throughout the long and complex pre-conciliar process, those representatives of the Holy Orthodox Churches who have been preparing for the Council, refer to it in all official statements as the "Holy and Great Synod [Council] of the Orthodox Church;" they do not refer to it as an "ecumenical council," and have been clear that this synod will not address doctrinal matters. They are consciously trying to not attempt to give it the status of the ecumenical synods of the first millennium.

As to the matter of the "True Orthodox Churches," the heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches, at their Assembly (Synaxis) at The Phanar in 1992, issued a joint statement in opposition to the separated churches. I don't think there's any chance they would be considered for admission to the Holy and Great Synod.